Construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc has lost a challenge to the registration of two ‘Hellcat’ trade marks by FCA Group, producer of well-known auto brands Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Alfa Romeo.
Key insight into claim on Warranty & Indemnity insurance
The Supreme Court of Victoria has considered whether an insured buyer under a warranty and indemnity policy is entitled to indemnity from an insurer when it relied on income and liability warranties in a share sale agreement and those warranties were breached, a case that provides welcome guidance on the contractual interpretation of W&I policies, writes Justin McDonnell and Rebecca LeBherz of King & Wood Mallesons.
$2.5M break fee in Pacific Energy takeover battle not anti-competitive, panel says
Google blasts ACCC’s ‘cherry-picked’ suit over data collection disclosures
Ex-Murray Goulburn execs say judge should not disqualify them again
The former chief financial officer of Murray Goulburn has asked a judge to relieve him from any disqualification order sought by the corporate watchdog in its case over his alleged role in the milk supplier’s continuous disclosure breaches, saying he is already the subject of orders that ban him from the dairy industry.
IP firm pursues potential lawsuit against HWL Ebsworth
Law firm gave trendy Melbourne cafe bad settlement advice, appeals court finds
ASIC wants to probe Worrells liquidator over winding up of Members Alliance Group
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission wants to investigate the conduct of a Worrells partner in relation to the winding up of Members Alliance Group, a group of property investment companies whose 2016 collapse stripped creditors of over $40 million and left its director facing fraud charges.
Monster Energy takes on ‘mother’ of a trade mark battle
Monster Energy has launched another Federal Court case against Vittoria Food & Beverage seeking to block the coffee maker from trading on the popularity of its Mother energy drink brand, and the beverage giant will have to convince the court that its brand is not so strong that confusion among consumers is not likely.